Hacker News Reader

Comment by koheripbal | Hacker News Reader

It's very destructive to discourse to force people to polarize to one side or another. Most people when intimidated to "choose sides" will choose the side of the person NOT trying to pressure them into taking sides.

To give you an idea of the types of historical figures that used the "you're either with us or against us" most famously...

Benito Mussolini

Vladimir Lenin

George W Bush after 9/11

Recep Erdogan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_ag...

View on HN

You seem to be arguing anyone who is political is either for or against every political issue if they aren’t allowed to claim to be neutral in general.

But to people who are arguing that being “neutral” is actually a political stance and usually supporting of the status quo, you try to say they’re tantamount to Mussolini.

Really? Someone disagrees with you so your go to response is to bring up Mussolini?

If you don't want to be compared to a Nazi, don't regurgitate fascist dogma.

You really don't see the irony that you believe your side, what you currently view as "neutral" is so absolutely unquestionable that any one who critiques it should be silenced?

You're not even allowing for the idea of opposition to exist which is a radical view pretty similar to the ones held by all the people you have mentioned.

No one is saying opposition to the so called status quo should be silenced. Simply that political advocacy may be outside the scope of your role as an employee for your company.

You are mischaracterising the point and assuming bad intent.

What I am saying is that your actions and omissions have political outcomes whether you want them to or not.

Right, and the person you’re replying to is stating that many questionable political leaders have used that same argument to bully people into submission.

It's also kind of destructive to say that people you disagree with are like Mussolini, but here we are.

If you don't want to be compared to a Nazi, don't regurgitate fascist dogma.

Taking a non binary position is still a position. Ignoring the divisive nature of political discourse doesn't keep one from having to deal with the political and economic reality that it's creating for everyone. Crypto itself is fairly heavily married to libertarian politics which most now see as the gateway to the unfairness->nihilism dialogue being promoted by the right as a cover for their political machinations.

Crypto is also very capable of moving huge amounts of money from hostile foreign nations to disruptive factions anywhere in the world. Claiming libertarian alliances could be an easy cover for those kinds of activities. That whole space has been a cesspool.

>It's very destructive to discourse to force people to polarize to one side or another.

Do you mind quoting the GP on where you feel like he's trying to force people to polarize and why that makes you feel that way?

edit: Could those downvoting me please make an effort to help me understand parent comment's viewpoint instead of making low effort downvotes? I really don't feel like asking for clarification on something warrants a downvote without response.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com